"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote:
>
> Background: PEP 215 has some interesting ideas, but IMHO is more than
> I'm comfortable with. At IPC10, Guido described his rules for string
> interpolation as they would be if his time machine were more powerful.
> These follow some discussions we've had during various Zope sprints
> about making the rules simpler for non-programmers to understand.
> I've also been struggling with how error prone %(var)s substitutions
> can be in the thru-the-web Mailman strings where this is supported.
> Here's what I've come up with.
>
> Guido's rules for $-substitutions are really simple:
>
> 1. $$ substitutes to just a single $
>
> 2. $identifier followed by non-identifier characters gets interpolated
> with the value of the 'identifier' key in the substitution
> dictionary.
>
> 3. For handling cases where the identifier is followed by identifier
> characters that aren't part of the key, ${identfier} is equivalent
> to $identifier.
>
> And that's it. For the sake of discussion, forget about where the
> dictionary for string interpolation comes from.
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler and more inline with what we
already have, if we'd use '%' as escape characters ?
1. %% becomes %
2. %ident maps to %(ident)s as we have it now
3. %{ident} maps to %(ident)s
4. %(ident)s continues to have the same semantics as
before
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH
______________________________________________________________________
Company & Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/
Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4